Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equality -- right?Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?
You recognize this correct?
Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equality -- right?
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?
You recognize this correct?
Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww
If procreation was not a reason for marriage........
I'll hold up a bit here so you can catch up on your reading..........
Why is it that fathers are prohibited (I know that's a big word.....take your time) from marrying their own daughters?
Did you make it this far?
Use your phonic skills, it's ok
And I'll type this really slowly for you...incest is illegal. Get it declared not illegal and you will begin to have an argument.
As has been stated repeatedly, no one is prohibited from civilly marrying due to an inability or unwillingness to procreate. YOU only wish to deny one group, gays, access to civil marriage based on YOUR perception of procreation. That makes you an anti gay bigot.
Procreation matters only when certain folks want to wed, but not when YOU want to wed?
Tell me again how you define bigot?
Procreation, by law, only matters in some states among married couples with close familial ties...they are prohibited from doing it.
This simple fact destroys your ludicrous "argument" regarding procreation and civil marriage.
A bigot is someone who wishes to deny equal rights to a minority group. That describes you to a "T".
Pops: Gays can't get married because they cannot procreate with each other
Everyone Else: What about sterile or childless by choice couples, they don't procreate and you don't wish to deny them civil marriage?
Pops: They aren't gay.
So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?You know that, since the state can never force, say, the Roman Cathollic Church to marry same-sex couples, you shall not see 100% equality -- right?Yes. You know what 99% equality is? INequality. People are only equal when they are 100% equal.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?
You recognize this correct?
Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.You know that forcing religious organizations to do something has nothing to do with civil equality, right?
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?
You recognize this correct?
Thus, inequality.
Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?
You recognize this correct?
Thus, inequality.
Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.Why? Procreation?
Thanks for the assist
Always appreciated
What's your point? Just because there are laws against incestuous relationships/marriage, doesn't mean everyone else must procreate in order to get married.
Ohhhhh, anyone else aye
Quite an argument
You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.
If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.
My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.
So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.
Ok, got it
Now what's this equality you were speaking of?
Since you want to pretend the madness of your claim was not already noted, and keep repeating the stupidity, I thought I would repeat myself for your eification:Since when can't gays marry?
Are you insane?
Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.
You recognize this correct?
Thus, inequality.
Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?
Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.
Oh, wait. I misunderstood your question, I believe. Sure, so long as the only recognized legal document is a "certificate of civil union", and the "marriage certificate" is rendered to the same realm as the certificate of baptism - in other words, having no legal standing whatsoever - for everyone, regardless of the gender of the participants, sure.Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.
You recognize this correct?
Thus, inequality.
Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?
Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.
And I say again, that you are the one who keeps doing this by making procreation an issue. Either that, or you are simply making a different bigoted argument. Either procreation is an issue for anyone who is unable to procreate, or you are trying to discriminate against homosexuals. Which is it?Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.What's your point? Just because there are laws against incestuous relationships/marriage, doesn't mean everyone else must procreate in order to get married.
Ohhhhh, anyone else aye
Quite an argument
You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.
If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.
My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.
So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.
Ok, got it
Now what's this equality you were speaking of?
I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion
Are gays disabled?
wonderful news for individual rights
Dangerous Dolt,
Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!
I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.
We can't insult someone like you.... you need a BRAIN to become insulted!
Loving v Virgina AGAIN,... ad-nauseum,......... Iv talked that to death..... youve seen my arguments already............you cant learn, and are too wrapped up in your own issue to see the reality.Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocriteNo you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.
Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.
But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.
That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.
And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.
But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.
You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.
But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.
Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.
Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite
You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.
But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.
Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)
Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.
Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.So, your answer to my question must be "no".
Thus, inequality.
Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?
Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.
Tax Benefits
\Estate Planning Benefits
- Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
- Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Government Benefits
- Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
- Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
- Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
- Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Employment Benefits
- Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
- Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
- Receiving public assistance benefits.
Medical Benefits
- Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
- Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
- Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
- Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Death Benefits
- Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
- Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Family Benefits
- Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
- Making burial or other final arrangements.
Housing Benefits
- Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
- Applying for joint foster care rights.
- Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
- Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Consumer Benefits
- Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
- Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
- Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
- Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
- Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
You cannot possibly be suggesting that it would be easier, and "more equitable" to force all of those laws, and policies, and more, to be changed, then it would be to simply acknowledge same sex marriages.
- Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
- Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
- Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
- Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
- Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
- Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
No they aren't dumb ass"Fuck you" and "Fuck off" are pretty much the same thing, and neither really allows for further intelligent discussion.I told you that you have a problem with comprehensionReally?Fuck off I told you exact how it is.THAT WASN'T WHAT YOU SAID.LOWER COURTS MADE UP OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES OVER TURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE IS NOT LETTING THE PEOPLE HAVE IT'S SAY, AND ALSO GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THE HIGHER COURTS. DUMB ASS
I asked about your specific claim that the courts ruled that this was a state issue. Why would you make that claim, knowing full well that that is a false claim?
As to your claim here. Answer a simple question: Is there any limit on the "will of the people"?
Okay. Well, since "Fuck you" is not really a reply that allows for an intelligible response, you are dismissed.
I said FUCK OFF
You are dismissed.
Loving v Virgina AGAIN,... ad-nauseum,......... Iv talked that to death..... youve seen my arguments already............you cant learn, and are too wrapped up in your own issue to see the reality.Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocriteNo you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.
That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.
And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.
But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.
You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.
But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.
Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.
Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.
You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.
But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.
Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)
Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.
Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.
You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.
But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.
Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)
Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.
